Architects & Engineers for 911 truth Richard Gage, AIA www.ae911truth.org will be coming to The Truth Movement room every 1st Sunday of each month for
a 2 hour Question & Answer period. Starting October 3rd, 6 pm Pacific time or 9pm Eastern time, 2am U.K. time. The Admins of the room invite you to
mark that date down and join us for revealing explosive evidence. express.paltalk.com...

Yes that is very good demonstration and part two is just as good for those who are to lazy to even look at the links...which i know so many are not
willing to look learn and understand...it needs to be put to them on a platter...so lets make it easy shall we....

They failed and collapsed, implosions would create very loud and abrupt blasts, sending shock waves surly picked up by millions of people. If they
were at ground level the blasts would have killed those within 2 blocks of the bases, simply by the massive shock waves necessary to sever the core
columns. Not explosive experts here mostly.

A blast is characteristic by a very abrupt beginning and later dissipation, but what we saw was a buildup of a slower thrust of air released in the
buildings gushing out of the path of least resistance, building up thrust as the collapse caught up with the breeches. And we heard no loud blasts
during any collapses, just large heavy things pounding on other heavy things creating rumble sounds.

In 1993 a half ton of high explosives were parked right next to a main core column, it did not breech that column, but everybody left that WTC tower
covered in soot. We also didn't see that on 9/11.

Physical science is so hard for pedestrian folk to understand, because it looks like this on Youtube, and I'm no expert, but......I want to believe
what I believe regardless...

Originally posted by Illustronic
They failed and collapsed, implosions would create very loud and abrupt blasts, sending shock waves surly picked up by millions of people. If they
were at ground level the blasts would have killed those within 2 blocks of the bases, simply by the massive shock waves necessary to sever the core
columns. Not explosive experts here mostly.

I think this is exaggerated. When buildings get demolished people within a 2 block radius don't get killed. And there weren't even millions of
people in the area at the time. 30-40,000 at most just judging by the occupants of the towers and the surrounding traffic.

And if you watch the youtube video "total proof of bombs 9/11" you can hear a loud explosion in the beginning of the video.

They failed and collapsed, implosions would create very loud and abrupt blasts, sending shock waves surly picked up by millions of people. If they
were at ground level the blasts would have killed those within 2 blocks of the bases, simply by the massive shock waves necessary to sever the core
columns. Not explosive experts here mostly.

I think this is exaggerated.

Ya think?

Just how thick does this guy imagine the columns were?

Cole managed to cut through a similar columns using little more than a handful of garden variety thermate, it didn't look like he died while doing it
and he seemed to be well within a two block radius. Camera didn't even shake.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Thought some of you would find this interesting,

There's an AE911 conference coming up in Washington DC, going to be later today, Friday Sept. 9th at 2 pm. Yahoo News is reporting this, and that the
agency has accumulated 1270+ verified, petition-signing architects and engineers demanding a better investigation.

For comparison, there are about 1.6 million engineers in the United States, and
141,000 architects. The petition invites foreign architects and engineers to sign, too, so the pool of
potential signers is much larger than 1,741,000. The 1,200+ who signed and were verified is a drop in the bucket. And some of those are software
engineers, electrical engineers, and biomedical engineers. I am sure they are very smart people, but I don't think they bring any special insight to
9/11.

How is it relevant how many engineers and architects currently exist in the world?

It's necessary to contextualize the number of AE911 signers. If I ran a "Blue Is Red" web site, and told you, "Two artists have signed my blue is
red petition," would that convince you that blue is red? No, because you intuitively understand that two is a very small number, and such a small
number of responses to a self-selecting survey is worthless. That's what AE911 has done. They have a self-selecting survey and they got a very small
number of people to sign on, but they are counting on the fact that some people will not understand just how small that number is.

it's more people than nist had. and AE911 didn't get paid by the government (maybe, lol. talk about not listening to REAL "truthers").
they (AE911) use the word "freefall" too loosely. it is actually around 2/3G, with fits and starts of certain features in there that are anomalous
from that rate. this kind of mistake being ignored in favour of a more sensational storEy, is an easy mark for "debunkers". (*typical controlled
demolitions fall at a similar rate. around 2/3G)
mind you, that rate is for the big boy twins, but the mere 47 storey building DID have periods of acceleration equal to gravity, or 1G.
NIST agrees. wtc7 was in actual freefall.

I'm sure if NIST had a poll and they ran the kind of public relations campaign that AE911 does, they could find more signers than AE911, easily. But
that's not what NIST was doing; they were writing a series of reports. You are comparing report authorship to petition signers, which is not a useful
comparison. Perhaps if AE911 had 1500+ people working for 4-6 years on a report like NIST's, the comparison would be more appropriate.

Anyway, it's not the raw number that I found interesting; it's the fact that AE911 makes such a big deal out of such a small number. They put it
right there in their logo. Why would they do that? Because they are counting on their customers not to know how small that number really is.

and AE911 didn't get paid by the government

NIST gets funded by law. Collectively, they have no incentive to lie. Individual members could be pressured or bribed, but given the scale of the WTC
report, the conspirators would have to pressure or bribe a great many people--NIST
employees and consultants, including several retired FDNY, and numerous
contractors. The report relies on multiple lines of inquiry, so it isn't
enough to get to just one person; you have to get to almost everyone. Of course, there is no evidence of bribes or pressure; and if we assume the
existence of bribes or pressure, the fact that NIST is funded by the government becomes irrelevant. Following the money gets us nowhere with NIST; if
anything, it makes them more credible.

AE911 gets paid by conspiracy buffs who buy their DVDs and donate to their PayPal account. They don't have a reliable source of government funding
and must rely on the business and good will of their customers. Therefore, they have every incentive to create a product that their customers will
purchase, even at the expense of the truth. Following AE911's money trail, they are less credible.

Besides, if the 9/11 conspirators were so powerful that they manipulated multiple airlines, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the military,
Congress, the international media, NIST and its contractors, WTC security and maintenance personnel, and even the perceptions and memories of
witnesses that day -- wouldn't they squash this tiny AE911 outfit like a bug? For the conspiracy theory to be correct, NIST must have been bribed or
pressured, and as I have demonstrated above, that couldn't have been easy. Surely anyone capable of poisoning a big, complex, public process like the
NIST reports could do the same to a little, relatively simple business like AE911?

Yet NIST didnt. If they would find backing in the global scientific community they would get it. They did not only not seek it out, they refused to
defend their work when challenged to do so. At this point the NIST REPORT has not much more going for itself than cold fusion, with the difference
that cold fusion went to the start line and lost. NIST never entered the race.

As a result of the NIST reports, building codes were revised and subsequently accepted by the construction industry.

You don't get much closer to a general acceptance of NISTs findings than that.

As for AE911Twoof, have they succeeded in ferretting out the computer engineers, landscape architects etc? And when, if ever, will Richard Gage submit
his petition to someone with power to do anything?

I'm sure if NIST had a poll and they ran the kind of public relations campaign that AE911 does, they could find more signers than AE911, easily.

pure speculation.

Anyway, it's not the raw number that I found interesting; it's the fact that AE911 makes such a big deal out of such a small number. They put
it right there in their logo. Why would they do that? Because they are counting on their customers not to know how small that number really
is.

it's not small. most people just believe the news, and don't bother to look into it, engineers and architects are generally very busy people, and
many have no idea wtc7 even fell. that's what's "good" about AE911, ...they raise awareness of the QUESTIONS if not the answers.

and AE911 didn't get paid by the government

NIST gets funded by law. Collectively, they have no incentive to lie. Individual members could be pressured or bribed, but given the scale of
the WTC report, the conspirators would have to pressure or bribe a great many people--NIST
employees and consultants, including several retired FDNY, and numerous
contractors. The report relies on multiple lines of inquiry, so it isn't
enough to get to just one person; you have to get to almost everyone. Of course, there is no evidence of bribes or pressure; and if we assume the
existence of bribes or pressure, the fact that NIST is funded by the government becomes irrelevant. Following the money gets us nowhere with NIST; if
anything, it makes them more credible.

AE911 gets paid by conspiracy buffs who buy their DVDs and donate to their PayPal account. They don't have a reliable source of government funding and
must rely on the business and good will of their customers. Therefore, they have every incentive to create a product that their customers will
purchase, even at the expense of the truth. Following AE911's money trail, they are less credible.

Besides, if the 9/11 conspirators were so powerful that they manipulated multiple airlines, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the military,
Congress, the international media, NIST and its contractors, WTC security and maintenance personnel, and even the perceptions and memories of
witnesses that day -- wouldn't they squash this tiny AE911 outfit like a bug? For the conspiracy theory to be correct, NIST must have been bribed or
pressured, and as I have demonstrated above, that couldn't have been easy. Surely anyone capable of poisoning a big, complex, public process like the
NIST reports could do the same to a little, relatively simple business like AE911?

ALL the official investigations were stonewalled and also limited in the hard evidence they had access to, or could make available for PUBLIC
scrutiny. "national security" = "secret government doing whatever the hell it wants to do with absolute power". it's apparent that everything you say
is too unlikely to have happened because of numbers of people involved is no good argument as it is obvious to SOME of us that it did happen, and
continues to happen, and there is a war on for your mind. but, you already knew that, warrior.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.